Login

russian armor

Let's talk about AT guns for a minute...

20 Nov 2013, 17:29 PM
#1
avatar of sluzbenik

Posts: 879

I think if AT guns could be made more reliable, then a number of other balance items might become a lot easier to manage. Ie., right now it's not so great that Tigers only have a 40-60% chance of being rammed, but if you can at least scare them off with reliable AT, it might help.

Obviously in COH1 AT guns were a lot more reliable. Here are the differences I know:

1) In COH1, AT Guns ordered to attack a target will continuously turn without additional input from the user. In COH2, AT guns must be manually rotated or spammed with attack unit commands to get them to keep turning.
2) In COH1, the turning speed seems to be a lot faster. AT guns pick up and then continuously turn until they can shoot their target, but in COH2 they pick up, turn, then set back down even if the target has already moved out of the firing arc. COH2 AT should continuously rotate better and NOT set back down if the target is not in the firing arc.
3) AT guns in COH1, if given an attack command will continue to move forward if the target moves into the fog of war. This can clearly not always what the user wants, but it's a behavioral difference worth noting, and sometimes you MAY actually want it. It's more a less a bug, in my opinion, that COH1 AT guns "know" where their targets are even if in the FOW. This was common unit behavior though in COH1, units given attack commands will briefly follow targets into the FOW.
4) Generally COH2 AT guns movement speed seems slower, but maybe someone can look up the stats. It is nearly impossible to chase a tank with an AT gun, even with a damaged engine unless it was less than 1/3rd of a screen away. In COH1 this was much easier to do.
5) Target priorities still don't feel right in COH2. Even if you've given an attack command, if the target is out of the arc, the AT gun will waste a shot on infantry. This is really, really bad in close battles where that fire/reload time matters a lot. There's got to be some delay on firing at infantry, or a timer because chances are the vehicle target will be back in range in another second. Maybe AT Guns could be programmed to never fire at infantry as long as a vehicle is in its general vicinity or some such? Ie., visible on screen.

Please note any stats you can dig up, I really, really think the AT mechanics are at the core of a lot of other problems...



20 Nov 2013, 17:33 PM
#2
avatar of Sarantini
Honorary Member Badge
Donator 22

Posts: 2181

They all seem like minor issues to me. The biggest change is the arc of fire is greatly reduced and the cost of the atguns.
20 Nov 2013, 18:36 PM
#3
avatar of ferrozoica

Posts: 208

The biggest factor (not including the firing arc) is that they can be destroyed a lot easier.

You really need to remember to repair your ATGs or they will just get sniped by a P4/Panther/Tiger Ace (I think it takes 2-3 shots from a Tiger Ace to destroy an ATG)

On your points though; all are solvable by proper ATG positioning - keeping them far enough back, having 2 covering each other, mine placements, infantry screens etc
20 Nov 2013, 18:51 PM
#4
avatar of JohanSchwarz

Posts: 409

Problem with this line of thought is that right now the German PAK with veterancy is actually pretty good (up to -50% reload speed, +30% penetration, stun, and camo), which makes up for its relatively weak presence at vet0. And it does not take much for an AT gun to vet up, assuming it's shooting at actual tanks.

This is all fine and dandy until we bring Elite Troops into the equation and start insta plopping Vet2 Paks. Any buffs to the AT gun are going to translate very badly when this commander is used (any buffs to German units in general, tbh).

Also don't forget that Relic probably has no intention of making Industry underpowered. This game has become nearly impossible to balance with the new commanders.
20 Nov 2013, 19:10 PM
#5
avatar of wongtp

Posts: 647

i feel that for what they do, they are too expensive, esp so for the german one, since soviet AT gun can double up as a light artillery piece. back in vcoh, AT guns were cheap(almost half the cost of medium tanks) and very effective against anything up to medium armour and remain good support against heavy tanks.

but in coh2, they have varied effectiveness against tanks, occasionally missing and/or deflecting, takes a little long to get reload and most importantly, are actually more expensive mp wise vs medium tanks. To add to the pain, they are clunky to micro, vulnerable to infantry, flanking units and indirect fire.

all these shortcomings makes it really difficult to build and maintain a solid AT gun position when 2 of these cost 720mp, while medium tanks are cheaper mp wise, have lesser vulnerabilities and able to deal with infantry/weapon teams as well as tanks.
20 Nov 2013, 19:53 PM
#6
avatar of rofltehcat

Posts: 604

What I'd like to see is a slight build time reduction for them. Build time is determined by cost but compared to all those call-ins and T70s, its normal build time feels so long. Its long travel time until it can actually do anything adds to that so I think a ~25% decrease of build time would be good.

Other than that, I don't really think the current game version is the right environment to change something about the AT guns' actual combat power.

Remember that recent changes have already made them a lot more accurate. They really aren't that bad when they actually get something in front of the barrel.
20 Nov 2013, 21:01 PM
#7
avatar of MetaStable14

Posts: 95

I'm still not able to use these things for the life of me. I would love to know how I am using them so terribly but I can rarely get kills with them and they die so easily.

Anybody have any decent advice on how to actually get kills with these? Most I can do is wound tanks that just retreat and get repaired. If I can't get kills then I am eventually steamrolled by a mass of tanks.

20 Nov 2013, 21:41 PM
#8
avatar of Greeb

Posts: 971

I think AT guns are fine, the only problem is the high number of tanks that have more range than them (Elefant, Isu152, Tiger Ace...) making them very vulnerable when they are more needed.

Tiger Ace vaporising ZiS with 2 shots is ridiculous.

20 Nov 2013, 22:15 PM
#9
avatar of nwglfls

Posts: 240

give us the health bar!!!!
20 Nov 2013, 22:55 PM
#10
avatar of Anarcy

Posts: 55

Ehm, am I the only one who thinks that the German AT is better than the ZiS? If I remember correctly, they have exact the same stats, except the rate of fire is higher for the Pak. And, yes, Soviets get Barrage. But it costs you very dear and is not very effective if your opponent is not stupid. Germans have Target weak point, which is a sweet ability to hinder tanks from flanking or fleeing. And thats what I want for my Anti Tank(!) Gun.
20 Nov 2013, 23:01 PM
#11
avatar of Greeb

Posts: 971

jump backJump back to quoted post20 Nov 2013, 22:55 PMAnarcy
Ehm, am I the only one who thinks that the German AT is better than the ZiS? If I remember correctly, they have exact the same stats, except the rate of fire is higher for the Pak. And, yes, Soviets get Barrage. But it costs you very dear and is not very effective if your opponent is not stupid. Germans have Target weak point, which is a sweet ability to hinder tanks from flanking or fleeing. And thats what I want for my Anti Tank(!) Gun.


ZiS barrage is very useful against enemy mortars, mg42s and garrisoned units.
And it has a crew of 6 men.

Pak is a better AT gun, but ZiS can resist more damage and is more useful against infantry.
21 Nov 2013, 07:18 AM
#12
avatar of Ptah

Posts: 66

IMO AT guns should be more accurate. They tend to miss a lot, especially against light vehicles and light tanks.
21 Nov 2013, 10:11 AM
#13
avatar of GustavGans

Posts: 747

I think if AT guns could be made more reliable, then a number of other balance items might become a lot easier to manage. Ie., right now it's not so great that Tigers only have a 40-60% chance of being rammed, but if you can at least scare them off with reliable AT, it might help.

Obviously in COH1 AT guns were a lot more reliable. Here are the differences I know:

1) In COH1, AT Guns ordered to attack a target will continuously turn without additional input from the user. In COH2, AT guns must be manually rotated or spammed with attack unit commands to get them to keep turning.
2) In COH1, the turning speed seems to be a lot faster. AT guns pick up and then continuously turn until they can shoot their target, but in COH2 they pick up, turn, then set back down even if the target has already moved out of the firing arc. COH2 AT should continuously rotate better and NOT set back down if the target is not in the firing arc.
3) AT guns in COH1, if given an attack command will continue to move forward if the target moves into the fog of war. This can clearly not always what the user wants, but it's a behavioral difference worth noting, and sometimes you MAY actually want it. It's more a less a bug, in my opinion, that COH1 AT guns "know" where their targets are even if in the FOW. This was common unit behavior though in COH1, units given attack commands will briefly follow targets into the FOW.
4) Generally COH2 AT guns movement speed seems slower, but maybe someone can look up the stats. It is nearly impossible to chase a tank with an AT gun, even with a damaged engine unless it was less than 1/3rd of a screen away. In COH1 this was much easier to do.
5) Target priorities still don't feel right in COH2. Even if you've given an attack command, if the target is out of the arc, the AT gun will waste a shot on infantry. This is really, really bad in close battles where that fire/reload time matters a lot. There's got to be some delay on firing at infantry, or a timer because chances are the vehicle target will be back in range in another second. Maybe AT Guns could be programmed to never fire at infantry as long as a vehicle is in its general vicinity or some such? Ie., visible on screen.

Please note any stats you can dig up, I really, really think the AT mechanics are at the core of a lot of other problems...





I repeatedly wanted to create a thread about this topic but never actually managed to.

The design of at-guns in vCoH was pretty much spot on if you ask me.

In CoH2 the at-guns performance is very inconsistent and they get flanked and decrewed/destroyed by tanks way too easily.
I also think a cost/buildtime decrease would be a good thing, maybe 320mp or something.
21 Nov 2013, 10:42 AM
#14
avatar of SgtBulldog

Posts: 688

I used to struggle with At in this game too, but working with it, I find that they are in fact OK.

What broke the ice for me was when I started to use them in pairs instead of just 1 AT gun to cover one position.

One AT gun doesn't cut it against 1 tank (except T70) and I think that's completely fair.

So no, I don't think a change is needed (for ATG, that is).
25 Nov 2013, 09:04 AM
#15
avatar of HS King

Posts: 331



I repeatedly wanted to create a thread about this topic but never actually managed to.

The design of at-guns in vCoH was pretty much spot on if you ask me.

In CoH2 the at-guns performance is very inconsistent and they get flanked and decrewed/destroyed by tanks way too easily.
I also think a cost/buildtime decrease would be a good thing, maybe 320mp or something.


I agree with both of you.. i have no idea what the other people are on about. at guns in coh are a joke
25 Nov 2013, 09:52 AM
#16
avatar of The amazing Chandler

Posts: 1355

Point 1 is wrong. If you click on a Unit to attack, the AT Gun turns on its own. Trust me, i do it all the time. Point 3 i think is ok so. you cant demand from a unit to follow another into the fog o war.
In generall i think that something is missing from the AT Guns. A bit more penetration maybe?
25 Nov 2013, 09:58 AM
#17
avatar of Nullist

Posts: 2425

Permanently Banned
ATGs already have excellent penetration.170 iirc, which is pretty much as high as it gets.

The problem is still their effective accuracy.

They seem to like impacting shots on terrain, short of the target.
Maybe something related to the relatively low position of the gun itself?
The projectile seems to hit little bumps in the field or small elevations.
Attack Ground also seems to have much better accuracy than autofire.

Also as nwg states, Id like to see a secondary health bar on ATGs to indicate the hp on the weapon itself.
25 Nov 2013, 10:39 AM
#18
avatar of Esky

Posts: 202

jump backJump back to quoted post20 Nov 2013, 21:41 PMGreeb
I think AT guns are fine,




LuL wut. Do you know how many REAR, close range shots it takes for a ZiS to even think about doing anything to a tiger ace? Or how many shots a Pak will miss on a t70 right in front of it? Or how they get 2 shotted by practically every tank?
25 Nov 2013, 10:40 AM
#19
avatar of GustavGans

Posts: 747

In my opinion the first shot of a pak should always hit.
25 Nov 2013, 10:59 AM
#20
avatar of Omega_Warrior

Posts: 2561

In my opinion the first shot of a pak should always hit.

What about a zis?
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

805 users are online: 805 guests
0 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
38 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49083
Welcome our newest member, debethiphop
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM